Facilitating Screening and Brief Interventions in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of the AUDIT as an Indicator of Alcohol Use Disorders
{"title":"Facilitating Screening and Brief Interventions in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of the AUDIT as an Indicator of Alcohol Use Disorders","authors":"S. Lange, K. Shield, M. Monteiro, J. Rehm","doi":"10.1111/acer.14171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) was developed for use in primary health care settings to identify hazardous and harmful patterns of alcohol consumption, and is often used to screen for alcohol use disorders (AUDs). This study examined the AUDIT as a screening tool for AUDs. Methods A systematic literature search was performed of electronic bibliographic databases (CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science) without language or geographic restrictions for original quantitative studies published before September 1, 2018, that assess the AUDIT's ability to screen for AUDs. Random‐effects meta‐regression models were constructed by sex to assess the potential determinants of the AUDIT's specificity and sensitivity. From these models and ecological data from the Global Information System on Alcohol and Health, the true‐ and false‐positive and true‐ and false‐negative proportions were determined. The number of people needed to be screened to treat 1 individual with an AUD was estimated for all countries globally where AUD data exist, using a specificity of 0.95. Results A total of 36 studies met inclusion criteria for the meta‐regression. The AUDIT score cut‐point was significantly associated with sensitivity and specificity. Standard drink size was found to affect the sensitivity and specificity of the AUDIT for men, but not among women. The AUDIT performs less well in identifying women compared to men, and countries with a low prevalence of AUDs have higher false‐positive rates compared to countries with a higher AUD prevalence. Conclusions The AUDIT does not perform well as a screening tool for identifying individuals with an AUD, especially in countries and among populations with a low AUD prevalence (e.g., among women), and thus should not be used for this purpose.","PeriodicalId":7410,"journal":{"name":"Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research","volume":"35 1","pages":"2028 - 2037"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.14171","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23
Abstract
Background The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) was developed for use in primary health care settings to identify hazardous and harmful patterns of alcohol consumption, and is often used to screen for alcohol use disorders (AUDs). This study examined the AUDIT as a screening tool for AUDs. Methods A systematic literature search was performed of electronic bibliographic databases (CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science) without language or geographic restrictions for original quantitative studies published before September 1, 2018, that assess the AUDIT's ability to screen for AUDs. Random‐effects meta‐regression models were constructed by sex to assess the potential determinants of the AUDIT's specificity and sensitivity. From these models and ecological data from the Global Information System on Alcohol and Health, the true‐ and false‐positive and true‐ and false‐negative proportions were determined. The number of people needed to be screened to treat 1 individual with an AUD was estimated for all countries globally where AUD data exist, using a specificity of 0.95. Results A total of 36 studies met inclusion criteria for the meta‐regression. The AUDIT score cut‐point was significantly associated with sensitivity and specificity. Standard drink size was found to affect the sensitivity and specificity of the AUDIT for men, but not among women. The AUDIT performs less well in identifying women compared to men, and countries with a low prevalence of AUDs have higher false‐positive rates compared to countries with a higher AUD prevalence. Conclusions The AUDIT does not perform well as a screening tool for identifying individuals with an AUD, especially in countries and among populations with a low AUD prevalence (e.g., among women), and thus should not be used for this purpose.
背景:酒精使用障碍鉴定试验(AUDIT)是为在初级卫生保健机构中使用而开发的,用于鉴定危险和有害的酒精消费模式,通常用于筛查酒精使用障碍(AUDs)。本研究检验了审计作为aud的筛选工具。方法系统检索电子书目数据库(CINAHL、Embase、ERIC、MEDLINE、PsycINFO、Scopus和Web of Science),检索2018年9月1日之前发表的原始定量研究,不受语言和地理限制,评估审计筛选aud的能力。随机效应元回归模型按性别构建,以评估审计的特异性和敏感性的潜在决定因素。从这些模型和来自全球酒精与健康信息系统的生态数据中,确定了真阳性和假阳性以及真阴性和假阴性的比例。在全球所有存在AUD数据的国家中,估计治疗1例AUD患者需要筛查的人数,特异性为0.95。结果共有36项研究符合meta回归的纳入标准。审计评分切点与敏感性和特异性显著相关。标准饮料量对男性的敏感性和特异性有影响,但对女性没有影响。与男性相比,审计在识别女性方面表现不佳,与AUD患病率较高的国家相比,AUD患病率较低的国家有更高的假阳性率。结论:审计不能很好地作为识别AUD患者的筛查工具,特别是在AUD患病率较低的国家和人群中(例如,在女性中),因此不应用于此目的。
期刊介绍:
Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research''s scope spans animal and human clinical research, epidemiological, experimental, policy, and historical research relating to any aspect of alcohol abuse, dependence, or alcoholism. This journal uses a multi-disciplinary approach in its scope of alcoholism, its causes, clinical and animal effect, consequences, patterns, treatments and recovery, predictors and prevention.